2. Play balance favors an astonishingly improved if not 'superior' USA Command and Control apparatus.

Q) Is this what History teaches?
Or is this what "History in the Remaking" teaches?

<u>Note</u>: The following details were determined via playtesting. In other words, we couldn't find any qualifying design notes or qualifying scenario description info, outlining the nature of the 1st Manassas chain-of-command structure for either side.

We hope and trust, therefore, that the following will prove pleasantly insightful, perhaps, even helpful for those not well-versed with the ambitious plethora of First Manassas / First Bull Run scenarios. ==Denny

<li>McDowell has been assigned an awesome if somewhat bewildering 12-hex Command Range Radius. Bewildering only in context of aforementioned CSA Field Commanders.</li></ul>

Q) Is <i>one</i> BG McDowell worth the historical equivalent of a joint Beauregard and Johnston tandem?

--If you answered, "yes," is this what History teaches?
--If you answered, "no," is this again more akin to History in the Remaking?<ul><li>History does teach us that Beauregard proved himself both strategically inflexible and tactically indecisive on the 1st Manassas battlefield - but, please, let's show him a margin of historical "Overall Field Commander" respect, by assigning him a more measured if still reserved <b>8-hex</b> CR Radius.</li>

<li>History also reminds the student of history (!) that soon-to-be-promoted J. Johnston, by contrast, proved himself both tactically sound (decisive) and equally determined to "take charge" on the threatened Confederate left flank, once he arrived on the field of battle - so, let us more aptly assign him a fair if more historically measured <b>12-hex</b> Command Range Radius - the equivalent of any tactically unproven BG McDowell any day, mind your blues and butternuts.</li></ul>

Henceforth, in keeping with the spirit of what it means to "Take Charge" of <i>our</i> battle(s) - - not so unlike BG Johnston's comportment in '61 - wargaming hobbyists need the requisite "permissions" to access any code that directly effects our otherwise 'mis-underestimated' Command Range Radius determinations for officers and leaders on both sides of the Mason-Dixon.

Review:

<ul><li>BG Johnston requires a tactically substantiated 12-hex CR Radius.</li><li>BG Beauregard demands a more reserved if cautious 8-hex CR Radius.</li><li>BG McDowell may demand a 10-hex CR radius - despite proving himself tactically overwhelmed in battle (although, strategically quite sound). If the Union player thinks this "unfair," let him explain to the CSA player his 'impediment' of 5 Division Commanders on the field. Thank you.</li>
<li>Restore <i>all</i> USA brigade and division leader CR's - at least between 1861 to early 1863 - to original Command Range Radius ratings.</li></ul>

I find the rebel army in HPS Camp. Antietam very strong. Played with fire/melee mod. The rebels have a huge number with A and B units. But played correct it is possibel for the Union to win. So for me the balance is just correct.

I have said it before and I repeat HPS Camp. Antietam is a fantastic game!

Lt.Colonel
Ola Berli
XX/1/5
"Artillery of Death"
AOC
THIS IS THE END REBEL!

Command and control was a major issue in the Confederate armies until after the Seven Days campaign when Lee reorganized into two corps under Jackson and Longstreet with divisions undernearth. Prior to that the Confederate constitution did not allow any military formation larger than division size (unless grouped as an army).

That being said, it still seems the setup for 1st Manassas - given the game rules - is heavily weighted against the Rebs being able to hold a line, which they obviously did historically. I don't mind being at a disadvantage with the leadership in that battle but given the game mechanics there has to be a compromise somewhere.

I'm sorry but I don't usually do this but I find this 'analysis' a bunch of the usual Confederate hogwash.[;)]

First of all, please before you start screaming bloody murder for the 'poor' Confederates and how mistreated they are, get your facts straight at least.[:p] If you take the standard BR scenario and view command range and select either Rebel 'Army Commander' their command range is 28 as is the other Army commander-Mcdowell. The Division Commanders for the Union are all Ds on command and D/C on LDRShip so I wonder how many times Union troops are going to earn that bonus .. The Confederates have equal or better leaders at army (2 LDRs) level and brigade. As far as no Confederate Division commanders, I guess that's just the way it was. Check the actual OB for the actual battle. As far as Beauregard and Johnson go, I'm not sure why you hold them in so high regard. Also did you check what the average unit morale is for each side? How do you scream about balance(and the crappy scenario designer), when you don't analyze all the factors that go into it and you get wrong the only factor you do consider? Unless this was covered in a previous post and I apologize if it was. JMHO and I apologise if I have offended.[:I]
one old damnyankee [8D]

"McDowell had clearly studied his Frederick the Great, but he failed to notice that Frederick's grand flank attacks had usually relied upon an exceptionally well drilled and experienced army. At First Manassas there was no such army available, <i>so the attacks went in piecemeal and ineffectively.</i> Because the Union manoeuvres were more complex and demanding than the Confederate response, they fell apart more quickly ...." -- <i>Battle Tactics of the Civil War</i>, Paddy Griffith, pp 31-32.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Ineffective ... piecemeal ... regiments or companies.

Below is Colonel Heintzelman's Official Report - a revealing demonstration of his observably limited determination and abilities to command - a Division, or lack thereof. And, in his own candid words, no less.

One near-sighted aide to Beauregard believes he last saw the woefully mis-underestimated if critically brilliant Vol. I thoughtlessly wrapped between two discarded cigar wrappers left in the vicinity of an unidentifiable ford.

In any case, by reviewing the following report, one can begin to appreciate why there are NO Division actions at 1st Manassas. <blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"General McDowell, who, accompanied by his staff, had passed us a short time before, sent back Captain Wright, of the Engineers, and Major McDowell, one of his aides, with orders to send forward <u>two regiments</u> to prevent the enemy from outflanking them.

"Captain Wright led forward the <u>Minnesota regiment</u> ...In the mean time I sent orders for the <u>zouaves</u> to move forward, to support Ricketts' battery on its right. As soon as they came up <u>I
led them</u> forward against an Alabama regiment, partly concealed in a clump of small pines in an old field. At the first fire they broke, and the greater portion fled to the rear, keeping up a desultory firing over the heads of their comrades in front.

"I then led up the <u>Minnesota regiment</u>, which was also repulsed, but retired in tolerably good order.

"Next was led forward the <u>First Michigan</u>, which was also repulsed, and retired in considerable confusion. They were rallied, and helped to hold the woods on our right.

"The <u>Brooklyn Fourteenth</u> then appeared on the ground, coming forward in gallant style. I led them forward to the left, where the Alabama regiment had been posted in the early part of the action, now disappeared. We soon came in sight of the line of the enemy, drawn up beyond the clump of trees. Soon after the firing commenced the regiment broke and ran. I considered it useless to attempt to rally them.

"The want of discipline in <i>these regiments</i> was so great, that most of the men would run from fifty to several hundred yards to the rear and continue to fire---fortunately for the braver ones, very high in the air--repelling those in front to retreat." --Colonel P. Samuel Heintzelman's Official Report For the Battle of First Mnassas. --http://thomaslegion.net/colonelsamuelpheintzelmansofficialreportforthebattleoffirstmanassas.html<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Q) Common theme?

Q) Is Heintzelman's self-described conduct that of an expected Division Level Commander?

Q) Where were Heintzelman's <i>brigade</i> officers on July 21, 1861, presumably, still under Tiller's - if not poor Colonel Heintzelman's - Division Level Command Bonus spell!?

So,

--Colonel Heintzelman describes leading single regiments into battle - just what one would expect of a colonel / regimentally trained officer.

--He both thought and acted as a regimental colonel . . . commanding one regiment, then another, and another - so he claims - while rather candidly admitting to being repulsed, time and again, with eventual total loss of command and control over all <i>his regiments</i>.

Stunning, but predicted, given the documented if dismal performance of Union command on that day.

<u>To Review</u>:

Richard Berg, Paddy Griffith, an egregiously overwhelmed if seriously inexperienced colonel (Heintzelman), and now we, too, have no other recourse but to recommend a summary dismissal of <i>all</i> Division Leaders from further consideration at First Manassas.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by zinkyusa</i>
<br />Can a couple of Reb leaders (Jackson comes to mind) in BR be set to pass on command modifiers as a diviion commander would to certain parts of the Reb army in the interest of play balance?

What play blance is that? Beauregard and Johnson have command ranges of 28 and only McDowell has a command range of 28. There are no "corps" commanders since neither side used them at this stage of the War. There are no Division Commanders for the South because there weren't any. If it is a question of play balance, it would seem more appropriate to change the VCs vice adding 'nonhistorical'
artificalities to the scenario like making Jackson a "Division Commander". Again just my humble opinion. God forbid that the Union could actually win a scenario once in a while. [8)] I thought that was what was meant by balance-vice the very big CSA BIAS I see here.[;)] If the analysis is flawed, then chances are so is the solution.[}:)]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by zinkyusa</i>
<br />Can a couple of Reb leaders (Jackson comes to mind) in BR be set to pass on command modifiers as a diviion commander would to certain parts of the Reb army in the interest of play balance?

I guess the first question is to determine whether or not the scenario's really are unbalanced. Is there any data available from playtesting? Can a report be run in the games records against the new BR scenarios. Certainly the posting indicates a possible problem but as Phil points out it predominatly CSA players who have posted.[:)]

If we are going to start demanding changes? then I'll chip in with mine! I want to see the 5 Regiments of Jackson's Brigade...currently rated as 'B' quality...changed to 'D' or at best 'C' quality. A Brigade of 'B' quality troops at this early point in the war is ridiculous! I never see a Reb player admit to that?
Jackson's Brigade performed little better on the day than any other units that were present historically. We all know that Gen. Bee's oft quoted line about Jackson...'standing like a stone wall'...has always been misinterpreted?

When I have played the 1st Bull Run scenario (historical) on both the BG and HPS engine, I have found that events follow a broadly historical path. I can raise hell with the Rebs for the first half of the battle and it slows to a stalemate by the end of the day. Both the Reb & Union players usually know enough about history to avoid any great disasters. I've never noted any significant advantage in my having 5 Divisional commanders in my force. I HAVE noted the fact that the Reb Army contains a lot more 'B' & 'C' quality Infantry in their OOB than I have in the Union. That hardly seems fair when you consider Gen. Winfield Scotts appraisal of the situation..."You are green, it is true, but they are green also; you are all green alike."

The designers have done their best to recreate the commands as they were historically but WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE GAME ENGINE. The Rebs turned up to the fight that day with no Divisions and the Union had 5 on the field. The pro's and cons of the respective organisations are almost impossible to recreate, at least as far as logistics and command and control are concerned.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Phil Driscoll</i>
<br />I'm sorry but I don't usually do this but I find this 'analysis' a bunch of the usual Confederate hogwash.[;)]

First of all, please before you start screaming bloody murder for the 'poor' Confederates and how mistreated they are, get your facts straight at least.[:p] If you take the standard BR scenario and view command range and select either Rebel 'Army Commander' their command range is 28 as is the other Army commander-Mcdowell. The Division Commanders for the Union are all Ds on command and D/C on LDRShip so I wonder how many times Union troops are going to earn that bonus ..<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">A challenging mess, to say the least, brigadier. [xx(]

--But, <i>if</i> you <i>had played</i> - instead of having merely pretended to imagine the actual nuts and bolts nature of the 1st Manassas scenarios first hand - (Scenario 003 was our original selection), your boys might have gleaned (learned) that BG McDowell's command relationship to his own Division Commanders was set by the scenario designer to be that of a simple <i>Corps Commander</i>. I say you might have? [?][:0][?]

Now, take note of your parameter data for a Corps Commander? "12 hexes". Thus Brigadier General Irvin McDowell serves in the capacity of Corps Commander - <u>not</u> Army Commander as you were rash to lay claim, with some otherwise mythical 28 hex non-starter bit of pure fantasy - while Johnston and Beauregard equally serve in the rather modest capacity of two Division Commanders.

As an aspiring brigadier, your troops doubtless would be better served by having them better aligned and fit for active duty with the requisite facts at hand.<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The Confederates have equal or better leaders at army (2 LDRs) level and brigade.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">"Brigadier is once more talkin' out of his butt!" ...suh... <salute>

It obviously bears repeating, both BG Johnston and BG Beauregard were assigned to function as Division Level Commanders. Check your parameter data to observe that the Division Command Range radius is butt 6 hexes. So it is for Beauregard and Johnston. 6 hexes each. end of story. please, no more butts.<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">As far as no Confederate Division commanders, I guess that's just the way it was.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">"Guess?" <i>All</i> rebel brigadiers, including Jackson and Longstreet, know all too well that there are <u>no</u> CSA Division commanders, who ever assumed command at First Manassas . . . oh, other than - I almost forgot - Beauregard and Johnston, according to the scenario design in play.<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">JMHO and I apologise if I have offended.[:I] one old damnyankee [8D]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Fair Enough. It couldn't hurt, however, to pull out a textbook on the subject now and then, brigadier. [?] (but, no offense taken. now carry on and let's be more dutiful with the sometimes limited facts at our disposal).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Digglyda</i>
<br />If we are going to start demanding changes? then I'll chip in with mine! I want to see the 5 Regiments of Jackson's Brigade...currently rated as 'B' quality...changed to 'D' or at best 'C' quality. A Brigade of 'B' quality troops at this early point in the war is ridiculous! I never see a Reb player admit to that? ....

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum